• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

Possible MH370 Debris found on Reunion Island

A French report is raising the question of whether debris found on Reunion island came from MH370, and this question was quickly answered by folks on Twitter. The report shows the following photos:




The folks on Twitter, (after one of them suggested this was "from the plane shot down near Diego Garcia",) located a story of a competition sailing vessel that had lost it's rudder recently nearby, and found photos of the missing part in question, they do seem to be quite close.

This is the boat in question:


This is the rudder in question:



Taken from this video:


And where it was ripped from the hull:



And during construction:



For once, I think Twitter nailed this debunk before I had a chance to even look at it! So what do you folks think?
 
Last edited:
@Mick West
My record time for solving a /r/WhatIsThisThing post is :49 seconds from the time the user posted it to the time I posted the answer, I was an addict for awhile!

:D

I noticed after posting here that the /r/MH370 subreddit came up with the same "it's a boat rudder" answer, after consulting with /r/Sailing.
 
more possible sonar contacts

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2015/mh370-sonar-contacts.aspx

There are three classifications for sonar contacts which are identified during the course of the underwater search.

Classification 3 is assigned to sonar contacts that are of some interest as they stand out from their surroundings but have low probability of being significant to the search. The underwater search so far has identified more than 400 seabed features that have been classified as category 3.

Figure 1: ProSAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar – Category 3 Contact

ProSAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar_cat3_July_400x267.jpg

Educational Fact Sheet
Publication date: 29 July 2015


or from daily mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ia-Airlines-MH370-t-NOVEMBER-bad-weather.html

An Australian recovery team scouring the southern Indian ocean claims to have made significant finds they consider to most likely be parts of the MH370 wreckage.

The images are described as 'Category 3' sonar finds - images from the sonar scouring of the sea-bed are categorised as either 1, 2 or 3, with 3 being the most likely to be aircraft debris. They show two box-like images, and the other five long but very thin objects on the sea-bed.
 
Seems like they're just making stuff up as they go along but I guess they don't call them The Daily Fail for nothing.

ATSB: "... low probability of being significant to the search."
Daily Mail: "... claims to have made significant finds they consider to most likely be parts of the MH370 wreckage."
 
There has been speculation as to how long ago that flaperon first washed up onto the shore at Reunion. Some suspected as early as May.

On Jeff Wise' blog, Charles Griffiths, an emeritus professor of marine biology at the University of Cape Town, find compelling evidence in the barnacles attached to the piece :


Can you tell whether the barnacles in that picture are alive or dead? If alive, how long can they live after being washed up?

If you find a washed up item that is fresh (same day) the barnacles will still be opening their shells and waving around their cirri (legs) to try to feed. Obviously in a still image cannot see this. However I can see the cirri projecting from some animals. These would rot away and drop off in a few days in a tropical climate, so this wreckage has only been washed up a couple of days at most. Also crabs and other scavengers love to eat goose barnacles and will clean off most within a couple of days. There is no evidence of feeding damage or headless stalks here, so that suggests to me this wreckage was collected and photographed within a day or two of stranding.
Content from External Source
http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/11/listening-to-barnacles/

I found that argument convincing.
 
more possible sonar contacts

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2015/mh370-sonar-contacts.aspx

There are three classifications for sonar contacts which are identified during the course of the underwater search.

Classification 3 is assigned to sonar contacts that are of some interest as they stand out from their surroundings but have low probability of being significant to the search. The underwater search so far has identified more than 400 seabed features that have been classified as category 3.

Figure 1: ProSAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar – Category 3 Contact

ProSAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar_cat3_July_400x267.jpg

Educational Fact Sheet
Publication date: 29 July 2015


or from daily mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ia-Airlines-MH370-t-NOVEMBER-bad-weather.html

An Australian recovery team scouring the southern Indian ocean claims to have made significant finds they consider to most likely be parts of the MH370 wreckage.

The images are described as 'Category 3' sonar finds - images from the sonar scouring of the sea-bed are categorised as either 1, 2 or 3, with 3 being the most likely to be aircraft debris. They show two box-like images, and the other five long but very thin objects on the sea-bed.

Phoenix on PPRuNe suggests that they might be engines?




http://www.pprune.org/9080586-post494.html
 
tore off on impact sank together? tho the ocean depth means the fuselage wings drifting down could be miles away
 
Classification 3 is assigned to sonar contacts that are of some interest as they stand out from their surroundings but have low probability of being significant to the search.
Content from External Source
I love PPRuNe, but doesn't this mean that experts with access to the raw data have ruled these items out already?

I assumed the dark areas to the right were "sonar shadows", although not parallel they could be from a composite image.
 
They look like two roughly square(ish) objects with sonar shadows and no surrounding debris. I don't think that they are the engines. A water impact strong enough to rip both engines off would not leave them in such pristine shape. Just look as some of the AWE1549 recovery photos. The engines suffered quite a bit of damage and one of them still remained attached.

 
Mick - re: post #16: E. van Sebille tweeted about an interactive graphic the NYT had to show his reverse drift at various times - I think he cited the same link you did.

Whether I follow your link or his, I can't find so much as your image, let alone the tool. Perhaps they've removed it. Did you manage to archive the interactive tool, as well, or just the image?

Also, in all of your graphics, it would be instructive to overlay precise representations of both the ISAT 7th Arc and the current ATSB fuel limit. As you know, the "defined search area" has been bounded by those two arcs since Oct.8.
 
Mick - re: post #16: E. van Sebille tweeted about an interactive graphic the NYT had to show his reverse drift at various times - I think he cited the same link you did.

Whether I follow your link or his, I can't find so much as your image, let alone the tool. Perhaps they've removed it. Did you manage to archive the interactive tool, as well, or just the image?

Also, in all of your graphics, it would be instructive to overlay precise representations of both the ISAT 7th Arc and the current ATSB fuel limit. As you know, the "defined search area" has been bounded by those two arcs since Oct.8.

http://adrift.org.au/backward?lat=-22.3&lng=57.7&center=0&startmon=Jan
 
Thanks for the link to Sebille's own site - and I recognize the common core modelling would drive both - but I am actually trying to track down the NYT's interactive graphic they themselves built. Did you archive the whole interactive animation from the NYT site, or just the image you posted in #16?
 
Thanks for the link to Sebille's own site - and I recognize the common core modelling would drive both - but I am actually trying to track down the NYT's interactive graphic they themselves built. Did you archive the whole interactive animation from the NYT site, or just the image you posted in #16?
I think that image is all there was
 
An official announcement from French authorities, one of the three serial numbers located on this piece of debris from the original post has now been matched to MH370.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34145127


French prosecutors have said they believe "with certainty" that a wing part found on Reunion Island in July came from missing flight MH370...

...But on Thursday they said a technician from Airbus Defense and Space (ADS-SAU) in Spain, which had made the part for Boeing, had formally identified one of three numbers found on the flaperon as being the same as the serial number on MH370.
Content from External Source
This announcement will certainly not appease all of those who have come to alternate conclusions based on non-evidence-based hypothesis, fear, anger, sadness, confusion, distrust of authority or for whichever reason that may have led them astray. However I honestly do hope that at least for some of the families of the victims of this tragedy will soon be finding the actual answers that they deserve.
 
The next data to come from the item has to be method of detachment, I guess?

1) Mid-air breakup
2) Controlled ditching
3) Uncontrolled flight into ocean
 
The next data to come from the item has to be method of detachment, I guess?

1) Mid-air breakup
2) Controlled ditching
3) Uncontrolled flight into ocean

Am I the only one who feels that this investigation is going at a snail's pace ?

Considering that a $ 100 million search effort is on the way, ANY piece of information we can extract from this flaperon could be helpful in constraining the search area or at least help adjust the probability density of the search areas.

For example, why is there no official statement about simple things like :

- How buoyant IS this flaperon exactly ? How much freeboard does it expose to the wind and how much remains below the surface line ? That could shed some light on the previous claims (by an anonymous researcher) on the conundrum that the entire flaperon must have been submerged, and also provide guidance for drift models.

- What caused the flaperon to detach from the plane (how did the hinges break) ?
Was that because of 'flutter' by excessive air movement or was this flaperon detached by an impact with a harder substance like water ?
Any qualified metallurgist should be able to tell the difference, but we hear nothing.

- Or even extremely simple facts like : which side of the plane is this flaperon ? Left or Right ?

According to guys working with the Inmarsat pings, MH370 must have followed an uncontrolled left turn during its final minutes :
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1461
which suggests that the RIGHT flaperon would have sustained the most severe 'flutter' and thus would be the most likely to detach.

Instead of some answers to such basic questions, all we have is :

"The French-led investigation team examining the flaperon has concluded the first phase of inspection work," the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau said in web posting.

"French authorities will, in consultation with Malaysia, report on progress in due course,"
Content from External Source
That kind of evasive answers are deeply unsatisfying. Not only for researchers trying to pinpoint where MH370 went down, but most of all for the families of MH370 victims who still do not know what happened to their loved ones.
 
Last edited:
I think the amount of evidence that can be adduced from one piece of wreckage is necessarily limited. It's frustrating but probably unavoidable. True evidence needs to be cross referenced with other known data, of which there is scant.

I flew past IGARI two nights ago. It's a little unsettling...

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
More possible wreckage found in Mozambique:

Another piece from the ill-fated MH370 Boeing 777 may have been found by a teenager holidaying with his family in Mozambique...Aviation experts told the news portal that the “676EB” letters were clearly seen printed on Lotter’s piece in photos which emerged overnight. It may not be a serial number but a zone reference identifying it as part of the inboard support fairing for the outboard trailing edge flap of a Boeing 777.
Content from External Source


http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/03/11/another-mh370-wing-piece-found/
 
from Pprune and dailymail


Debris believed to have come from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has washed up on an island east of Mauritius.Guests staying at a hotel on Rodrigues Island found what is thought to be wreckage from the plane that disappeared two years ago with 239 people on board while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The discovery comes after the Australian government confirmed debris found on a Mozambique beach is 'highly likely' to have come from the missing flight.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shed-island-east-Mauritius.html#ixzz44iXpeoz8


20160402-172900-9m7b1.jpg

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...ound-reunion-mosambique-sa-5.html#post9331287


nwgMbB8.jpg

3qYBrR4.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A new report was released today, available in full here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770117/debris-examination-mh370_19april2016.pdf

I'll post the relevant items mentioned in the overview.

On 27 December 2015 and 27 February 2016, two items of debris were independently found, approximately 220km apart, on the Mozambique coast. Both items were delivered to the relevant Civil Aviation Authorities in Mozambique and South Africa in early March 2016. Assistance from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was requested by the Malaysian Government in the formal identification of the items to determine if they came from the Malaysian Airlines Berhad (MAB) Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO, operating as MH370.
Content from External Source

Conclusions
At the time of writing, ongoing work was being conducted with respect to the marine ecology identification as well as testing of material samples. The results from these tests will be provided to the Malaysian investigation team once complete. Nevertheless, from the initial examination it was concluded that:

Part No. 1 was a flap track fairing segment, almost certainly from the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO.

Part No. 2 was a horizontal stabiliser panel segment, almost certainly from the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO.
Content from External Source
(Bold emphasis mine.)
 
reports of more debris being washed up in Madagascar


"New pieces of debris have been found in Madagascar by a man searching for parts of missing flight MH370. Blaine Gibson, who has already found possible debris in Mozambique, made the latest discovery on the east coast of Madagascar. One of the parts resembles an aeroplane seat part. Mr Gibson has sent images of the finds to investigators."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36495617
 
and now suspected bits in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/world/plane-d...-examined-for-mh370-link-20160609-gpftdf.html

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will investigate if a piece of debris found washed up on the South Australian coast on Thursday afternoon has links to the missing Malaysian aircraft MH370.

A man who was searching the beach for driftwood discovered the debris, which appears to be from a plane, on the coast of Kangaroo Island at around 2.40pm ACST.

South Australian police collected the piece of wreckage, slightly larger than a shoebox, and will keep it until the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) picks it up to be examined.

1465487414423 (1).jpg 1465487414423.jpg 1465487414423 (2).jpg

i looked to pprune for any hints or confirmation of pictured parts but its contributors yet to reveal knowledge

Kangaroo island a long way east but is in possible drift models

kanga.PNG
 
looks like it has that same honeycomb material (third pic down) as pictured in the BBC piece below

similar colouring too

honeycomb.jpg
 
From CNN....

An FBI forensic examination shows the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conducted a flight simulation on his home computer that closely matched the suspected route of the missing Boeing 777 in the southern Indian Ocean, according to a Malaysian government document obtained by New York magazine.

The confidential document summarizes Malaysia's police investigation into Zaharie Ahmad Shah, the captain of the plane that has been missing for more than two years.
According to the magazine, citing the document, the FBI analyzed hard drives from a flight simulator Zaharie had built using Microsoft Flight Simulator X software. The FBI was able to recover data points from the program that pointed to the southern Indian Ocean.
The document is quoted as saying the simulated flight was made less than a month before MH370 went missing in March 2014.
Content from External Source
 
Wing part 'highly likely' from MH370, Australian officials say
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/30/asia/mh370-debris-tanzania/

(CNN)A large wing part recently found on a Tanzanian island "highly likely" came from missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, according to Australia's transport minister.

The piece of debris was found in late June on Pemba Island, in the Indian Ocean near the mainland. The piece, believed to be part of the outboard wing flap of the missing Boeing 777, was transported to Australia and analyzed by the country's Transport and Safety Bureau.


160720070846-02-mh370-debris-0720-exlarge-169.jpg
 
Back
Top